There could be no better proof of the revolution – care of the internet – occurring in the accessibility of information and informed commentary than the reaction of our mainstream, corporate media.

For the first time, Western publics – or at least those who can afford a computer – have a way to bypass the gatekeepers of our democracies. Data our leaders once kept tightly under wraps can now be easily searched for, as can the analyses of those not paid to turn a blind eye to the constant and compelling evidence of Western hypocrisy. Wikileaks, in particular, has rapidly eroded the traditional hierarchical systems of information dissemination.

The media – at least the supposedly leftwing component of it – should be cheering on this revolution, if not directly enabling it. And yet, mostly they are trying to co-opt, tame or subvert it. Indeed, progressive broadcasters and writers increasingly use their platforms in the mainstream to discredit and ridicule the harbingers of the new age.

A good case study is The Guardian, considered the most leftwing newspaper in Britain and rapidly acquiring cult status in the United States, where many readers tend to assume they are getting access through its pages to unvarnished truth and the full range of critical thinking on the left.

Certainly, The Guardian includes some fine reporting and occasionally insightful commentary. Possibly because it is farther from the heart of empire, it is able to provide a partial antidote to the craven coverage of the corporate-owned media in the US.

Nonetheless, it would be unwise to believe that the Guardian is therefore a free market in progressive or dissident ideas on the left. In fact, quite the contrary: the paper strictly polices what can be said and who can say it in its pages, for cynical reasons we shall come to.

Until recently, it was quite possible for readers to be blissfully unaware that there were interesting or provocative writers and thinkers who were never mentioned in the Guardian. And, before papers had online versions, the Guardian could always blame space constraints as grounds for not including a wider range of voices. That, of course, changed with the rise of the internet. [link to www.jkcook.net]

Because News Corp. has apparently given up any pretensions to respecting the privacy of others, it recently updated the privacy policy for the Wall Street Journal website to allow the company to connect personally identifiable information with Web browsing data without user consent.

Before the change, which was made on Tuesday, the WSJ.com privacy policy stated it would obtain "express affirmative consent" to combine personal data with "click stream information."

German secret state agencies installing spyware capable of transforming PC webcam and microphone into listening device

Revelations by the Chaos Computer Club (CCC) that German secret state agencies are installing spyware on personal computers capable of transforming a PC's webcam and microphone into a listening device, sparked outrage across the political spectrum.

It has since emerged that despite legal requirements that police do so only with a warrant and only if surveillance intercepts are used to prevent threats to "life, limb or liberty," authorities are not complying with strict limits laid down by Germany's Supreme Court.

And while these disclosures may have ignited a political firestorm in Berlin, they will come as no surprise to readers of Antifascist Calling.

Three years ago, I reported that Germany's foreign intelligence service, the Bundesnachrichtendienst or BND, was caught up in a major scandal after the whistleblowing web site WikiLeaks, published documents which revealed that the agency had extensively spied on, and even recruited, journalists for use in illicit intelligence operations.

Recalling the CIA's long-running Operation Mockingbird program that enrolled journalists as spies in what are now euphemistically called "influence operations," the covert manipulation of the domestic and foreign press according to WikiLeaks, showed "the extent to which the collaboration of journalists with intelligence agencies has become common and to what dimensions consent is manufactured in the interests of those involved."

BBC News reported that "Bavaria has admitted using the spyware, but claimed it had acted within the law." And Deutsche Welle disclosed that "several additional German states have admitted to deploying spyware," including "Baden-Württemberg, Brandenburg, Schleswig-Holstein and Lower Saxony," but like their counterparts in Bavaria, those officials also claimed they had operated "within the parameters of the law"

As I have written many times, the secret state is bound by their own set of "laws." Normal rules and procedures which are supposed to protect citizens from unwarranted government intrusions are deemed inoperative for reasons of "national security."

In the United States, constitutional protections designed to guarantee the right of citizens to protest, enjoy a modicum of privacy in their daily lives or, at the most basic level, have their day in court before being executed, have been overthrown by two successive administrations who assert the right to conduct the affairs of state in secret, according to a set of legal guidelines which are unreviewable by any court.

Pentagon Seeks a Few Good Social NetworkersBy DAVID STREITFELDAugust 2, 2011

The Pentagon is developing plans to use social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter as both a resource and a weapon in future conflicts. Its research and development agency is offering $42 million in funding to anyone who can help.

Social media will change the nature of warfare just as surely as the telegraph, the radio and the telephone did, and the Pentagon is fearful of being caught short. Some of its goals were laid out in a document being circulated among potential researchers and is to be presented at a briefing on Tuesday in Arlington, Va., at the offices of the military contractor System Planning Corporation.

Documents recently obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request reveal detailed information about the FBI's electronic surveillance capabilities. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed the FOIA request in 2007 after it was reported that the agency was using "secret spyware."

The documents show that software called the Computer and Internet Protocol Address Verifier (CIPAV) was used by the FBI since at least 2001. The software allows the FBI to collect a variety of information from a computer every time it connects to the Internet, including the IP address, Media Access Control (MAC) address, open communication ports, list of the programs running, URLs visited, and more.

It is unclear how the FBI installs the software on a computer, but it is suspected that the spyware exploits a vulnerability in the user's browser, like other common Internet viruses.

There could be no better proof of the revolution – care of the internet – occurring in the accessibility of information and informed commentary than the reaction of our mainstream, corporate media.

For the first time, Western publics – or at least those who can afford a computer – have a way to bypass the gatekeepers of our democracies. Data our leaders once kept tightly under wraps can now be easily searched for, as can the analyses of those not paid to turn a blind eye to the constant and compelling evidence of Western hypocrisy. Wikileaks, in particular, has rapidly eroded the traditional hierarchical systems of information dissemination.

The media – at least the supposedly leftwing component of it – should be cheering on this revolution, if not directly enabling it. And yet, mostly they are trying to co-opt, tame or subvert it. Indeed, progressive broadcasters and writers increasingly use their platforms in the mainstream to discredit and ridicule the harbingers of the new age.

A good case study is The Guardian, considered the most leftwing newspaper in Britain and rapidly acquiring cult status in the United States, where many readers tend to assume they are getting access through its pages to unvarnished truth and the full range of critical thinking on the left.

Certainly, The Guardian includes some fine reporting and occasionally

insightful commentary. Possibly because it is farther from the heart of empire, it is able to provide a partial antidote to the craven coverage of the corporate-owned media in the US.

Nonetheless, it would be unwise to believe that the Guardian is therefore a free market in progressive or dissident ideas on the left. In fact, quite the contrary: the paper strictly polices what can be said and who can say it in its pages, for cynical reasons we shall come t

Until recently, it was quite possible for readers to be blissfully unaware that there were interesting or provocative writers and thinkers who were

never mentioned in the Guardian. And, before papers had online versions, the Guardian could always blame space constraints as grounds for not including a wider range of voices. That, of course, changed with the rise of the internet.

The facebook guy is stating how facebook is helping users to understand on line privacy and explaining how they are being really helpful in allowing users to customise their privacy levels. In reality, the real concern is what they are doing with the data behind the scenes and that it is a high level CIA datamining operation.

The facebook guy is stating how facebook is helping users to understand on line privacy and explaining how they are being really helpful in allowing users to customise their privacy levels. In reality, the real concern is what they are doing with the data behind the scenes and that it is a high level CIA datamining operation.

There could be no better proof of the revolution – care of the internet – occurring in the accessibility of information and informed commentary than the reaction of our mainstream, corporate media.

For the first time, Western publics – or at least those who can afford a computer – have a way to bypass the gatekeepers of our democracies. Data our leaders once kept tightly under wraps can now be easily searched for, as can the analyses of those not paid to turn a blind eye to the constant and compelling evidence of Western hypocrisy. Wikileaks, in particular, has rapidly eroded the traditional hierarchical systems of information dissemination.

The media – at least the supposedly leftwing component of it – should be cheering on this revolution, if not directly enabling it. And yet, mostly they are trying to co-opt, tame or subvert it. Indeed, progressive broadcasters and writers increasingly use their platforms in the mainstream to discredit and ridicule the harbingers of the new age.

A good case study is The Guardian, considered the most leftwing newspaper in Britain and rapidly acquiring cult status in the United States, where many readers tend to assume they are getting access through its pages to unvarnished truth and the full range of critical thinking on the left.

Certainly, The Guardian includes some fine reporting and occasionally

insightful commentary. Possibly because it is farther from the heart of empire, it is able to provide a partial antidote to the craven coverage of the corporate-owned media in the US.

Nonetheless, it would be unwise to believe that the Guardian is therefore a free market in progressive or dissident ideas on the left. In fact, quite the contrary: the paper strictly polices what can be said and who can say it in its pages, for cynical reasons we shall come t

Until recently, it was quite possible for readers to be blissfully unaware that there were interesting or provocative writers and thinkers who were

never mentioned in the Guardian. And, before papers had online versions, the Guardian could always blame space constraints as grounds for not including a wider range of voices. That, of course, changed with the rise of the internet.

Have read lots of information from various "writers" and "thinkers". The views expressed are from a "human point of view", or the LIBERAL HUMANIST point of view. All thoughts emanate from a mindset that is contrary or opposed to the Holy Will of the Most High God.

Have read lots of information from various "writers" and "thinkers". The views expressed are from a "human point of view", or the LIBERAL HUMANIST point of view. All thoughts emanate from a mindset that is contrary or opposed to the Holy Will of the Most High God.

The facebook guy is stating how facebook is helping users to understand on line privacy and explaining how they are being really helpful in allowing users to customise their privacy levels. In reality, the real concern is what they are doing with the data behind the scenes and that it is a high level CIA datamining operation.

Its safe to say that most people using the Internet, and Facebook, or any of the social websites, are "ignorant" of the real purposes for the Internet, and all the computerized communications technologies associated with its development. Few understand how they are being manipulated and controlled. The more 'invasive' and 'ubiquitous' the technologies get the farther down the rabbit hole humanity is FALLING! As far as Zuckerberg is concerned, he's either deceived or a deceiver. His end, like so many before him, will come. Where will he stand? On the right or left of the Almighty on Judgement Day?

In a further blow to online privacy rights and press freedom, the U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Va. ordered the microblogging site Twitter to hand over account information on three activists under investigation by the Justice Department for their links to the whistleblowing web site WikiLeaks.

Under "transparency president" Barack Obama, the U.S. government initiated a criminal probe of the organization after the site began releasing a virtual tsunami of confidential military and State Department files.

In the last two years alone, WikiLeaks revealed that the United States had committed grave war crimes in Afghanistan, Iraq and other global hot-spots of interest to America's resource-grabbing corporate masters.

This year's release of 779 classified dossiers on prisoners housed at the Guantánamo Bay prison gulag fleshed out the public's knowledge of ongoing torture programs run by the military and the CIA under cover of it's murderous "War on Terror."

But it was their publication of some 250,000 secret State Department cables which sparked a new round of hysterical denunciations in Washington culminating in the witchhunt against Julian Assange and WikiLeaks supporters, a demonization campaign aided and abetted by U.S. financial institutions such as Bank of America and Pentagon cyberwar contractors.

The Federal Reserve wants to know what you are saying about it. In fact, the Federal Reserve has announced plans to identify "key bloggers" and to monitor "billions of conversations" about the Fed on Facebook, Twitter, forums and blogs.

This is yet another sign that the alternative media is having a dramatic impact.

As first reported on Zero Hedge, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York has issued a "Request for Proposal" to suppliers who may be interested in participating in the development of a "Sentiment Analysis And Social Media Monitoring Solution". In other words, the Federal Reserve wants to develop a highly sophisticated system that will gather everything that you and I say about the Federal Reserve on the Internet and that will analyze what our feelings about the Fed are. Obviously, any "positive" feelings about the Fed would not be a problem. What they really want to do is to gather information on everyone that views the Federal Reserve negatively. It is unclear how they plan to use this information once they have it, but considering how many alternative media sources have been shut down lately, this is obviously a very troubling sign.

You can read this "Request for Proposal" right here. Posted below are some of the key quotes from the document (in bold) with some of my own commentary in between the quotes....

"The intent is to establish a fair and equitable partnership with a market leader who will who gather data from various social media outlets and news sources and provide applicable reporting to FRBNY. This Request for Proposal ("RFP") was created in an effort to support FRBNY's Social Media Listening Platforms initiative."

A system like this is not cheap. Apparently the Federal Reserve Bank of New York believes that gathering all of this information is very important. In recent years, criticism of the Federal Reserve has become very intense, and most of this criticism has been coming from the Internet. It has gotten to the point where the Federal Reserve Bank of New York has decided that it had better listen to what is being said and find out who is saying it.

"Social media listening platforms are solutions that gather data from various social media outlets and news sources. They monitor billions of conversations and generate text analytics based on predefined criteria. They can also determine the sentiment of a speaker or writer with respect to some topic or document."

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York intends to listen in on "billions of conversations" and to actually determine the "sentiment" of those that are participating in those conversations.

Of course it will be those conversations that are "negative" about the Federal Reserve that will be setting off the alarm bells.

Every post you make on the internet is recorded.. Everything you look at can be tracked.. EVERYTHING..

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 4061979

Yes.Every Web Browser can be undoubtedly be accessed by the ZSA (Zionist Spook Agencies).

In his book, "Between Two Ages," Brzezinski wrote: "The technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values."

AFP - Austrian law student Max Schrems may be just one of about 800 million Facebook users, but that hasn't stopped him tackling the US giant behind the social networking website over its privacy policy.

The 24-year-old wasn't sure what to expect when he requested Facebook provide him with a record of the personal data it holds on him, but he certainly wasn't ready for the 1,222 pages of information he received.

This included photos, messages and postings on his Facebook page dating back years, some of which he thought he had deleted, the times he had clicked "like" on an item, "pokes" of fellow users, and reams of other information.

"When you delete something from Facebook, all you are doing is hiding it from yourself," Schrems told AFP in his home city of Vienna.